Interesting Thesis

[GoldenRivet]

It slants right slightly, but i think the writer maintained a failry neutral stance through most of the article though not all of it.

It appears to be a nut case article at first glance, but worth reading.

It discusses the left's and the right's accusations the president (past and present) being put into a position to declare martial law to put off the November elections.

give it a chance... i enjoyed it - let me know what you think (assuming of course you actually took the time to read it top to bottom)

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/is-a-military-coup-likely-in-obamas-amerika/

[Skybird]

Just flew over it and thus cannot claim to have thoroughly digested it in all detail, but one passage attracted my eyes, because it was like an echo of what I repeatedly have thought myself in past months: the passage where Obama is being described as a president not only not solving problems, but giving the impression of being unable to even perceive the presence of a problem. I think this is the best description of him you can give. This is especially true in the area of foreign politics, where he indeed does more damage than good. The only really positive thing I would say about him regarding that matter is that so far he has not committed such a monumental stupid single act like Bush did when launching the Iraq war or shifting forces out of Afghanistan and to the Gulf instead of staying there in full strength and commitment. Bush was an idiot in war, Obama is a fool in peace. I am aware that the US lacks the power that it wishes to have to confront certain international problems the way it would just love to solve them - by slam-dunking them home to the sender. But Obama not only refuses to admit their existence, he even spills fuel into fires, for claims of idealism that in fact is not idealism but just irresponisble, self-damaging naivety. Over the coming years, the longterm strategic damage coming from that naivety may show to be as severe and enduring as the fallout from the Iraq war. And maybe even worse.

I still think Bush was the worst president the US ever had. But Obama does what he can to qualify for a close second place to that title. At least he is in the top group of the competion.

Before the elections, I said he was a brilliant speaker. He is, no doubt. But I also said that the hype around him is hopelessly exaggerated, and that he raises hopes, intentionally, that are so stellar and monumental that he necessarily must fail to deliver. That also has become true for most. Nevertheless I thought: he's new, it cannot become worse than with a Republican president inviting Palin as vice president, and it cannot become worse than it was with Bush. And it has not become worse indeed. But it also has not become too much better. The balance in his record after one and a half year imo is much more negative than positive. He dissappointed. If the Republicans are clever enough not to make Palin or some other idiot of her likes the republican candidate for the next presidential elections, I think Obama must be replaced. He may not wish to be that, but he is dangerous in his naivety. That makes him only preferrable to even more dangerous fools like Palin, Bush and others of that kind.

[GoldenRivet]

Its just a shame that he will go down in history as the first black president of the United States.

I expected the black community to put up a much more potent, honorable, contender with more conservative values.

where i live here in the south, you cant drive by a church without hundreds of black folks spilling out the front doors before and after sunday service dressed in their absolute finest.

it fascinates me that African American culture seems to embrace conservative christian ideals, but when it comes to politics, their vote - almost unanimously - does not reflect this idea. The same could be said however, of virtually any race in America. :nope:

perhaps i gave too much credit?

In regards to the article, the conclusion is that there are too many legal and constitutional issues with delaying an election (something the president does not have the power to do).

The article further points out that there are some legal things he can do to that effect... however, these issues would spell out certain political suicide, which i think the dems have already done.

what more could they do???

The president is already holding border security hostage, committing treason by saying "If i secure the border, republicans wont have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform"

[UnderseaLcpl]

it fascinates me that African American culture seems to embrace conservative christian ideals, but when it comes to politics, their vote - almost unanimously - does not reflect this idea. The same could be said however, of virtually any race in America. :nope:


That's because of three things, the first being the allure of "free" stuff. It is remarkable how many people think that money grows on trees, or that there is an as-yet untapped stash of it somewhere (usually in successful business leaders) that we could fix everything with if only we could get our hands on it. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and we both think as much, but try telling it to the factory worker whose plant is being shut down because of foreign competition. Just a little more money in the form of subsidies and a few tariffs would keep his plant open. He thinks it no great imposition on you to get just a few pennies of your tax money, or to make you pay a fraction of a cent more for a tariff, but there are over a hundred million workers in this country and when they all ask for a "few dollars more" they quickly overwhelm the economy's ability to generate a suitable tax base. It is a problem of perspective and incentive.

The second problem is that politicians know that, but their job is not guaranteed by performance. You know the rest. Again, it is a problem of incentive.

And finally, the problem comes right back to free stuff. Something given has no value, and even though the Federal government doles out billions in the name of assisting minorities, it rarely does any good. Indian reservations and subsidies, housing projects, rent controls, affirmative action, about ten-thousand initiatives aimed at minority education, public schools themselves, healthcare, social security, etc, etc ad nauseum. You name it, it's expensive and it doesn't work for most people. There are successes, of course; there damn well better be when that kind of money is spent, but I doubt that a single person in this community would point to any of the things I named above as a success.

Yet again, incentive is the problem. Cuban blacks in New York have very nice communities, but they aren't eligible for aid until they become citizens. Clearly, the money thrown at the problem is not the solution.

Yes, many blacks go to church, and for the most part, like any people, they are good people. They have values and morals and principles like any good people do, but without incentive they will have a hard time amounting to anything. This is particularly true of those who really are at a disadvantage to begin with due to disability or inability or a poor social clime or whatever. Same goes for everyone, just stop at the first welfare-financed white-trash hovel you can find and see for yourself, y'know?

[GoldenRivet]

Same goes for everyone, just stop at the first welfare-financed white-trash hovel you can find and see for yourself, y'know?

Hey, i tried the whole double wide thing for a while there it was all i could afford.

but it wasnt for me... always room for improvement IMHO.

of course despite what a couple of people here might tell you, i wasnt picking on blacks of course... you know that :up:

[CCIP]

I like the "stop panicking, stop the hyperboles, let's focus on the real work ahead" tone towards the end of the article. I agree, for all the anger and horror stories being thrown around, the fact the system will deal with Obama - he won't deal with the system. I still think it's too early to pass a final judgment on him, but indeed the facts are currently on his side.

Meanwhile instead of sloganizing, I really do wish that Americans from both sides of the spectrum focus on getting their country on a constitutionally-sound track.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Hey, i tried the whole double wide thing for a while there it was all i could afford.

but it wasnt for me... always room for improvement IMHO.

Not that I'd be talking down to people who live in a trailer. I live in a rental home, also because I can't afford anything else. But are you still in a trailer that you pay for with state benefits or are you pilot who owns his own flight school? I think we already see eye to eye on this.

of course despite what a couple of people here might tell you, i wasnt picking on blacks of course... you know that :up:

Well...yeah. Sorry if I implied otherwise, somehow. I just thought you had a question and I tried to answer it. I guess I thought that since you were fascinated by the idea it might mean that you don't understand it, so I gave you my perspective. Maybe I read into it too much.

edit-Meanwhile instead of sloganizing, I really do wish that Americans from both sides of the spectrum focus on getting their country on a constitutionally-sound track. I'm sure we'll get around to that just as soon as everyone agrees on what the Constitution actually means, which is on our list of "Things We're Likely to Do" just below "Cure Death and Taxes":)

[Platapus]

edit- I'm sure we'll get around to that just as soon as everyone agrees on what the Constitution actually means, which is on our list of "Things We're Likely to Do" just below "Cure Death and Taxes":)

There has never been a time when everyone agreed on what the Constitution actually means, nor do I ever believe there will be a time when everyone will agree.

I would hazard a guess that even the founding fathers did not all agree on what it meant and they wrote the damn thing! :D

[AngusJS]

I got to the third paragraph, where I came across this gem:

This will enable the Obama dictatorship to take off its humanist mask and put its true agenda into play...And you say it leans slightly to the right? How about it dives straight down into bat**** crazy?

Seriously, these people need to get a grip.

Set Congress ablaze, and people across the country would cheer, slap hands, and drive around beeping their horns at each other.Nice to see the author doesn't care about losing a national monument, and potentially hundreds of innocent people, as well as putting hundreds of firefighters at risk.

And the author forgot the main reason why our "dictator" won't be calling off the election: he's not so unhinged as the author to even consider such an idea worthy of reflection.

Seriously, if this is slightly right-leaning, where is the base? Off in the woods on maneuvers with their militias?

The president is already holding border security hostage, committing treason by saying "If i secure the border, republicans wont have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform"When has he said that, and how is it treason?

Oh, and looking further into that blog, I saw that they reposted a long article about Obama and Rahm Emmanuel being members of a gay club in Chicago.

Words fail me.

[GoldenRivet]

I have a lot of typing to do...

standby :yeah:

[GoldenRivet]

Ok...

Not that I'd be talking down to people who live in a trailer.

Wouldn't dream of it :up:

I live in a rental home, also because I can't afford anything else. But are you still in a trailer that you pay for with state benefits or are you pilot who owns his own flight school? I think we already see eye to eye on this.

correct we do see eye to eye... of course the trailer was actually quite nice for its age, and then again it wasnt one of those federally funded ones. this one was $400 / month if mammory serves :D

of course... im flat broke because im a pilot who owns his own flight school :har:

true ;)

Well...yeah. Sorry if I implied otherwise, somehow. I just thought you had a question and I tried to answer it.

your response was not only adequate, it was also eloquent, appropriate... and appreciated :DL

edit- I'm sure we'll get around to that just as soon as everyone agrees on what the Constitution actually means, which is on our list of "Things We're Likely to Do" just below "Cure Death and Taxes":)

lets settle taxes and constitutionality first... or else it could be the death of us. :D

When has he said that

When and where and Who (http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2010/06/20/obama-tells-kyl-in-private-oval-office-meeting-i-wont-secure-border-bc-then-republicans-will-have-no-reason-to-support-comprehensive-immigration-reform/)

and how is it treason?

The President as the Commander in Chief of the military as well as the United States Congress both have many responsibilities.

among them is defending our soil from foreign aggression.

many argue that heavily armed foreigners (be they military or civilian) routinely undermining national sovereignty by sneaking into the united states for the purposes of proliferation of illegal weapons, human trafficking, drug and drug paraphernalia smuggling and murder / kidnapping constitutes "foreign aggression"

in the opinion of some circles... this failure to act on his responsibilities constitutes treason.

See: Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "actions which help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

[Ducimus]

Funny, but true. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk)

[AngusJS]

When and where and Who (http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2010/06/20/obama-tells-kyl-in-private-oval-office-meeting-i-wont-secure-border-bc-then-republicans-will-have-no-reason-to-support-comprehensive-immigration-reform/)I'd like a better source than that, one that gave the context of the conversation.

Anyway, a foreign government is not involved, and illegal immigration != aggression, nor does illegal immigration mean overthrowing the government. Crime associated with illegal immigration is not aggression. Also, not taking action does not mean the intention is to cause harm.

And by your logic, EVERY president has been guilty of treason since illegal immigration took off.

[GoldenRivet]

Anyway, a foreign government is not involved, and illegal immigration != aggression, nor does illegal immigration mean overthrowing the government.

Correct, correct and correct again Angus... your starting to get it... now here you go. (http://thejewishstar.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/chocolate-chip-cookie_01.jpg)

Crime associated with illegal immigration is not aggression.

Ahhh... theres the rub.

you see, you and I disagree... we're not talking about illegals are we? ;)

No... we are talking about squad to platoon sized groups armed with fully automatic weapons who come in - and out - of the united states.

In with drugs, weapons, and illegal paraphernalia.

out with kidnapping victims etc.

if thats not aggression - eff me... i dont know what is brother.:nope:

I dont know how anyone could label it otherwise???

[AngusJS]

Correct, correct and correct again Angus... your starting to get it... now here you go. (http://thejewishstar.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/chocolate-chip-cookie_01.jpg):confused:



Ahhh... theres the rub.

you see, you and I disagree... we're not talking about illegals are we? ;)

No... we are talking about squad to platoon sized groups armed with fully automatic weapons who come in - and out - of the united states.

In with drugs, weapons, and illegal paraphernalia.

out with kidnapping victims etc.

if thats not aggression - eff me... i dont know what is brother.:nope:

I dont know how anyone could label it otherwise???It's not aggression, it's crime. There's a difference. What is the intent? Are the drug runners scheming to hurt America? No, they just want to make money. Same with the kidnappers. Otherwise, it would appear that every crime committed by a foreigner in the US is an act of aggression against the US.

Anyway, I'm sure you think W is guilty of treason too, right? This situation didn't start with Obama, after all.

[GoldenRivet]

It's not aggression, it's crime.

The same people who say that crap argue that there is a difference between a "crime" and a "hate crime"

Crime DOES equal aggression... i have never heard of anyone being politely raped or robbed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RWtW0AjO7M&feature=player_embedded

You're out of touch Angus... This would be war under several previous administrations.

Are the drug runners scheming to hurt America?

It could in fact be argued that they are

Anyway, I'm sure you think W is guilty of treason too, right?

in many ways it could be argued that "W" is in fact guilty of treason... yes.

this isnt about "W" or the problems we faced 6 years ago.

this is about our problems now.

border violence has gotten so far out of control and reached so deep into the southwestern united states that border states like AZ are actually BEGGING for federal help... and their plea is falling on deaf ears.

in fact the plea is NOT falling on deaf ears... deaf ears are incapable of hearing... Obama's are just unwilling to listen.

[GoldenRivet]

Angus,

you mentioned this paragraph in an earlier post as being off the crazy end of the right

"The contention is that at some point before the upcoming November elections, an “incident” of some violent but unknown nature will occur that will provide Obama with the opportunity to declare “martial law” across the country, which will involve the “cancellation” or “postponement” of the elections. This will enable the Obama dictatorship to take off its humanist mask and put its true agenda into play, part of which involves sending JRD up to Prudhoe Bay to feed moss to the caribou for the next ten years."

I made "the contention is" bold because this particular paragraph is what the author is responding to... this is what he is claiming certain people are saying, not necessarily what the author is saying... this paragraph is what he is writing about and then proceeds to DISPROVE it for the most part.

Did you even read the rest or did you stop there?

in other words - "here is what many of you are hypothesizing... now lets break this down and look at some facts"

[Sailor Steve]

I would hazard a guess that even the founding fathers did not all agree on what it meant and they wrote the damn thing! :D
No need to guess. There is plenty of evidence. They were playing it by ear, and several of the most famous would be called flaming liberals today.

[GoldenRivet]

No need to guess. There is plenty of evidence. They were playing it by ear, and several of the most famous would be called flaming liberals today.

Fact




and a remarkable job they did!:up:

[AngusJS]

The same people who say that crap argue that there is a difference between a "crime" and a "hate crime"Are not some crimes committed without any ill will against someone? Are not other crimes committed directly because of hatred for a group of which the victim is a member?

I'm not in favor of added penalties for hate crimes as opposed to regular crimes, but that doesn't mean there is no difference - the difference is rather obvious.

Crime DOES equal aggression... i have never heard of anyone being politely raped or robbed.So is mail fraud aggressive? Anyway, you're equivocating. Crime and aggression are two different things.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crime

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aggression

Trying to blend their meanings to be able to apply the charge of treason doesn't work.

You're out of touch Angus... This would be war under several previous administrations.So when the mob threatened police officers, they must have been committing an act of aggression against the US, right? They must have been rebels then, correct? Or were they just trying to pressure the cops to allow them to more easily commit their crimes, while happily remaining citizens?

It could in fact be argued that they areAnd those arguments would be crap. If we accept them, what's to stop us from stating that the goal of ANY criminal is to hurt the US first and foremost. There is just as little reason to think that is true, as with the drug runners.

in many ways it could be argued that "W" is in fact guilty of treason... yes.So I assume you voted for a traitor? If that's the case, then you must be a traitor too, as by helping to put such a man in power, you were be helping to open America up to acts of aggression from foreign elements. For shame. And if you didn't vote for W, then you surely must know a traitor who did.

Bad reasoning is fun!

[AngusJS]

Did you even read the rest or did you stop there?

in other words - "here is what many of you are hypothesizing... now lets break this down and look at some facts"

Alas, I read the whole thing. My point is, it's ridiculous to even take the contention seriously, which is what the author did.

[GoldenRivet]

So I assume you voted for a traitor?

Well lets see... if i voted for him before he committed any treasonous acts... does that count?

Alas, I read the whole thing. My point is, it's ridiculous to even take the contention seriously, which is what the author did.

seeing as how he disproved the contention - i dont see how.:06:



and yes i maintain that in any crime there is harm done to someone... there not being any truly "victimless crimes"

but harm and aggression are not the same thing are they?

so how does carrying a gun into the USA with the intent of killing police officers NOT constitude as an aggressive act??? i dont understand your argument of comparing cop killing to mail fraud

[Skybird]

On Angus and GR talking about migration, aggression, crime.

Crime committed by migrants must not always but can equal aggression between states, when the nation the migrants come from is governed by leader saying out plain and directly that for them migration is a way to gain influence in and over that other nation, and to raise a political powerbasis inside of it. Erdoghan on my mind, who said exactly this very clearly and unhidden and repeatedly. That makes the criminality of migrants an act of aggression in that the migration itself is an act of aggression, a policy of demographic "warfare". Even more so when the criminality of the migrants is of a kind that calls the office for protection of the constitution (kind of a German mixture of NSA and Secret Service) onto the scene.

We see the destabilizing effects of this policy in Germany very clearly. It destabilizes both the eeducational system as well as the social security system, because the offspings as well as the original migrants from Turkey for the very vast majority are uneducated and unable to succeffully compete on the job market.

Some longer time ago a speaker or official of the Turkish ministry for religion - which Germany has given the authority to select and send Turkish Imamas to Germany who in most cases do not even speak German, not to mention: knowing Germany and its culture aNnd history - fools we are to allow that! - also said very clearly, that this destabiloising effect of the growing Turkish subculture in Germany is wanted by the minsitry, since it helps to strengthen Islam.

So, both criminality of migrants as well as migration itself can be acts of aggression indeed. It must not be that in every case, though.Check the individual example. Turkey for example is a big problem. Japan, Korea, Spain, South Africa or America are not.

[GoldenRivet]

criminality issues, insurrection, aggression, racism, hurt feelings, stubbed toes, hang nails and bitter beer aside...

Whats happening to Arizona is wrong. - she is trying to address the problems on her own and being thrown under the GD bus by this administration. :nope:

Making an attempt to fix the problem is the right thing. - something this president has shown an inability or an unwillingness to do thus far.

any 4 year old has the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.

[Tribesman]

she is trying to address the problems on her own and being thrown under the GD bus by this administration.
Is that because their attempt was rather dumb and despite all the headlines and knee jerk support the people who signed it into law said it wouldn't stand as law.
So should the administration support a dumb move that wouldn't stand legally or should it leave the idiots to willingly jump under the bus by themselves.

BTW have the people down Arizona way worked out yet how they are going to get out of having to pay to keep iillegal immigrants in the State forever?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Crime DOES equal aggression... i have never heard of anyone being politely raped or robbed.


I have.:DL I don't watch much TV, but I know that I've seen some polite robbers on those "world's dumbest criminals" shows. I only recall one, but the guy tried to help an elderly female gas station attendant after she appeared to be suffering from a heart attack. IIRC he even called 911 for her. And then of course we have these guys: http://www.irs.gov/. No shortage of polite thievery there.

I can only recall one incident of polite rape, from a Stossel segment on a rape at Brown University. Even though the defendant denied any sexual misconduct and the case didn't come up until months after the incident, there was a student movement to have the defendant kicked off campus and charged with rape. I can understand that part. Sometimes women won't come forward right away and nobody wants a rapist in their community, save for a few real oddballs.

Even so, I assume it was a very polite form of rape because she gave him her phone number the next morning! Either that guy has some serious skills or somebody is pursuing a particularly horrendous form of ex post facto personal justice. As it was, the guy left because of all the ridicule he recieved from student activists. Stossel got ridiculed as well for just asking questions about the case. He didn't leave immediately, but he did when students began damaging his equipment and yanked out his mic cord.

This post is supposed to be mostly light-hearted, but there is also a serious message here. The fact that crimes committed against certain persons have a classification all their own outside the usual judgement of criminal intent is worrisome. It only exists because there are people who have an idea and do not want others to be heard. Admittedly, I get pretty stubborn sometimes, but I would never stoop to censoring opinion or attacking a person or their property in such a manner. Damn activists need to start playing by their own rules.


Making an attempt to fix the problem is the right thing. - something this president has shown an inability or an unwillingness to do thus far.

On this, I have to disagree to some extent. Simply attempting to fix the problem is not always the right thing. It isn't that I think a fix isn't needed, I just don't trust the government to do it properly. Their track record for this sort of thing is awful. I would much rather that the government stop trying to fix things like illegal immigration and the drug trade and the plight of immigrants and just about everything else they do because someone thought a problem needed fixing. My rule of thumb for government intervention is that where there is one problem the state will fail to fix the first one and create at least two more.

At the risk of stating the obvious or preaching to the choir, I will say that the nature of illegal immigration is and will be almost exactly what we made of the system designed to deal with it:

1)Free-market state, check.
Result: immigration

2)Restricted immigration, check
Result: increased demand for illegal immigration

3)Tariffs, bans, and other market controls, check
Result: Massive demand for banned goods and smuggling

4)Social welfare, check
Result: increased demand for illegal immigration

5)State personnel with protected jobs entrusted with border enforcement, check
Result: This debate if it had a $10 billion price tag ($500,000 per mile, or $94.00 per foot of border), every year.

For $500,000 per mile per year, we could hire a border patrol force at the rate of $1,369 per day, per mile. Even if we assume that administrative costs and other expenditures account for half of the total expenditures and cannot be streamlined, we are left with $694.50 per day, per mile which leaves us with enough to hire 34 agents per mile, per day, at a rate of $20.00/hr, giving us one agent per 160 feet or so of border, with all non-even decimal points rounded down. I won't even bother trying to figure out what kind of fleet of vehicles they could and what kind of benefits they could establish with a one-time only budget increase of $10,000,000. They also have a $50,000,000 fence. As it stands now, however the entire border patrol for the whole country has only 20,000 employees, so at least we know that they could spend half a million per employee with that one-time budget increase. Kind of makes you wonder just what the hell they are doing, doesn't it?

I think we should retain the budget and let private companies or even qualified citizens handle all border security. They'd do a far better job and we could cut their budget somewhat after the first few years of absolutely obscene profits. Can you imagine what kind of companies we could attract with the aforementioned price tags? There would be thousands of them, and we would be free to choose from the very, very best. Screw having government do something about this, let's hand it over to the professionals.

[AngusJS]

Well lets see... if i voted for him before he committed any treasonous acts... does that count?Possibly, as he was governor of a border state and thus is partially responsible for the lack of security. :)

I was just trying to show how silly this situation is - if inaction or ineffective action on the border is a test for treason, then every single president, (Obama, W, Clinton, Bush...even Saint Ronnie) who was in office while these shenanigans went on, is guilty of treason. I was trying to show the absurdity of this, but if you agree that Bush has committed treason in this regard...I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

seeing as how he disproved the contention - i dont see how.Take the Truther's claim that Bush was behind 9/11. If someone goes through a long analysis to debunk this claim but ignores the most obvious piece of disconfirming evidence - Bush gives no indication that he's a mass murderer - he does a disservice to Bush, and gives the impression that he actually does think such a thing possible. This is especailly the case when the author states that the violent destruction of an entire branch of government would be applauded by Americans - if he thinks the US government is that bad, how bad does he think the president is?

If at the end of the article, the author said SOMETHING to the effect of "...and finally, while Obama is a dirty pinko Kenyan, a would-be dictator he is not.", I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

and yes i maintain that in any crime there is harm done to someone... there not being any truly "victimless crimes" I can think of situations where crimes are victimless - for instance, receipt of stolen goods where the original and sole claimant to those goods is dead.

so how does carrying a gun into the USA with the intent of killing police officers NOT constitude as an aggressive act??? i dont understand your argument of comparing cop killing to mail fraudI never compared cop killing to mail fraud. You said

Crime DOES equal aggressionI provided a counterexample to show that crime does not equal aggression, because crime is not necessarily aggressive. In fact, I'm not sure what your statement means. You might as well say "table equals window."

And you're forgetting intent. Where is the intent among the armed drug runners to kill cops? If they intended to kill US cops, why don't they do so? It would be easy to draw some cops to the border, ambush them, and then flee back into Mexico. They don't do this because they DON'T intend to kill cops. They have guns to protect their shipment. If they can avoid killing anyone and see their shipment through, they will do so, as it benefits them the most. You can point to the threat mentioned in that news report, but listen to what is essentially being said - "leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone." Besides which, leveling a threat does not show intent to carry the threat out, but rather the intent to secure the results of that threat among the threatened party (i.e. cops thinking twice before messing with smugglers).

And do you think that the mules crossing the border are really considering their actions to be aggression? Do they really have a good handle on international politics, and have said to themselves "You know what? **** the US, I'm going to do everything in my power to hurt it." No, they're just supplying our demand. They're committing crimes, and not aggression against the state.

And you still haven't dealt with the implications of suddenly defining crime as aggression against the state. If we do that, then all American criminals are guilty of this as well, which apparently would make them rebels, I guess. Maybe we should just start charging criminals with sedition. You could say that's an appeal to consequences, but that doesn't apply here because the consequences are intrinsically wound up in how we define the words in question.

Anyway, I'm a bit tired after building this wall of text, so I'll sign off with this example of foreign aggression versus foreign crime.

Germany v. Poland 1939 = aggression

Hans Gruber's armed robbery in Die Hard = crime.

:DL

[GoldenRivet]

Look, I respect your position... I simply disagree with it.

It may or may not be a fact, but it IS my opinion that:

1. Drug cartels engaged in the trafficking of people, drugs, money, and illegal weapons across international borders is potentially detrimental to the state. Especially when the government is making parts of that the nation off limits to it's citizens.

2. Threatening to snipe police officers from concealed positions as they near *cartel controlled areas if the United States* is IMHO aggressive.
And tells me that it is the open intent of these cartels to take complete control of the area.

3. The border safety problem has grown so terrible in the past couple of years that it can no longer be ignored. And while I agree that it is treason for ANY president to ignore his duty to secure the borders from ANY foreign aggression... The problem is reaching a crascendo under this presidents watch and he is quite openly refusing to address the issue.

That's what my eyes see when I look at this situation.